14yr old with 6inch SE beats 60 year old with 8 inch SE!! 60 year old NOT happy! :-)

[Mark2022]

A young 14 year old whippersnapper from Indiana produces a fantastic shot with a 6 inch Celestron SE. He used:

3x  barlow

9750 frames 80% stacked

Celestron Nexstar 6se

ZWO ASI224

Me: 60 years old

Meade LX10 8 inch

Similar number of frames

2x Meade Telenegative barlow

SVBony SV305c camera (2.9 micron pixels)

 

The lad lives in Indiana so he's around 40 deg north whereas I'm 55 deg north so that COULD account for something of a difference. However, this lad is a beginner, he's using no ADC, a bog standard scope - no fancy motorise focus etc. He's basically pointing and shooting and, like me, uses Astrosurface to process.

He was even kind enough to offer to process mine for me to see if it could be due to my (lack of) processing skills but - due to the fact we l live in this somewhat depraved society we do  today - his parents put a stop to him giving me his email address (which I totally support - good for them, I suppose).

The photos were taken same day (29th). Before I started capturing, I rechecked my collimation and did a little adjusting. Just out of focus Polaris had a perfect disk with the point in the middle at high magnification so, unless there is some other issue with the optics, it isn't collimation. Granted, captured this at approx 23.30 when Jupiter was probably around 45 deg above  the horizon but I've taken other captures when it's been almost 60 deg and I still can't get this lad's level of detail.

Frustrated! 😂 There are people on this forum saying "You won't achieve the detail of an 11 inch or 14 inch with an 8 inch" and then this little dude comes along and says "Check this out: 6 inch!".

I know there are guys on here who know the secrets of achieving this sort of result but it always seems to be "seeing" and ADCs and this and that. This 14 year old just points and shoots!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Elp]

Unless you're imaging from the same location you can't really compare the two. Seeing makes all the difference for planetary.

[Mark2022]

18 minutes ago, Elp said:

Unless you're imaging from the same location you can't really compare the two. Seeing makes all the difference for planetary.

I  refuse to "buy" that until I see the reality of it. I don't dispute it does have an effect but I don't "buy into" that much of an effect. I will be more than happy when I am proven wrong in my thinking. 

[tooth_dr]

My 7 year old son just beat me in a 5km run, and I was trying!  Anything is possible!  (but it's likely the seeing that made the difference!)

[John]

11 minutes ago, Mark2022 said:

I  refuse to "buy" that until I see the reality of it. I don't dispute it does have an effect but I don't "buy into" that much of an effect. I will be more than happy when I am proven wrong in my thinking. 

It can make a huge difference visually (I am visual only) so I guess it could also make a major difference in imaging.

My best views of Saturn and Jupiter were many years back when they were really high in the sky. I've had some nice views occasionally recently but nothing to rival those views, despite my equipment and experience having moved forward someway in the meantime.

 

[Mark2022]

1 minute ago, John said:

It can make a huge difference visually (I am visual only) so I guess it could also make a major difference in imaging.

My best views of Saturn and Jupiter were many years back when they were really high in the sky. I've had some nice views occasionally recently but nothing to rival those views, despite my equipment and experience having moved forward someway in the meantime.

 

I  see you're all ganging up on me! I'm going to complain to the moderators! And I'm moving to Indiana! 

 

[Mandy D]

@Mark2022 I'm no expert on processing planetary images, but I think there is something odd about his processing. If you zoom in to 200%, there are rings outside of the planet and something doesn't quite look right. Your image, on the other hand, looks like it was taken under not-so-good skies in blurry old Britain, but if you push the sharpening a bit in GIMP and saturate the colours up a bit, it starts to look less blurry and less poor. I'm not saying I have done a good job, here, because I haven't but it certainly begins to look a bit more like Jupiter.

Have a look at what I did in GIMP to your image. Original on left.

[Kon]

I think we are going round and round this topic. We discussed it before and seeing among other parameters is a major player. I image quite a lot and a friend of mine 20miles from me can have better or worst seeing than me. 

I'll give you an example and rest my case. Jupiter taken by the same user, me, the same equipment (don'g forget I am all manual nothing fancy no ADC either), the same location, enough processing experience. Jupiter under bad seeing and under excellent seeing for uk skies. 8" Dob.

 

[Mark2022]

37 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

@Mark2022 I'm no expert on processing planetary images, but I think there is something odd about his processing. If you zoom in to 200%, there are rings outside of the planet and something doesn't quite look right. Your image, on the other hand, looks like it was taken under not-so-good skies in blurry old Britain, but if you push the sharpening a bit in GIMP and saturate the colours up a bit, it starts to look less blurry and less poor. I'm not saying I have done a good job, here, because I haven't but it certainly begins to look a bit more like Jupiter.

Have a look at what I did in GIMP to your image. Original on left.

I know this will sound odd  Mandy but I'm unsure which I prefer because with  the extra Gimp processing, I feel  it looks more and more like a coloured pencil drawing, if you see what I mean? Yes, there appears to be more "clarity" but I can achieve that with the wavelets and sharpening in Astrosurface or Registax but, again, it looks noisy and like a drawing. Compared to Kon's shots above (even with "bad seeing") it doesn't come close.

[Mandy D]

Just now, Mark2022 said:

I know this will sound odd  Mandy but I'm unsure which I prefer because with  the extra Gimp processing, I feel  it looks more and more like a coloured pencil drawing, if you see what I mean? Yes, there appears to be more "clarity" but I can achieve that with the wavelets and sharpening in Astrosurface or Registax but, again, it looks noisy and like a drawing. Compared to Kon's shots above (even with "bad seeing") it doesn't come close.

Yes, I do see what you mean and I did note that I was not doing a great job. However, I do think you are being too hard on your own image and not critical enough on your competitor's image, which I, personally, think has problems, too.

[Mark2022]

37 minutes ago, Kon said:

I think we are going round and round this topic. We discussed it before and seeing among other parameters is a major player. I image quite a lot and a friend of mine 20miles from me can have better or worst seeing than me. 

I'll give you an example and rest my case. Jupiter taken by the same user, me, the same equipment (don'g forget I am all manual nothing fancy no ADC either), the same location, enough processing experience. Jupiter under bad seeing and under excellent seeing for uk skies. 8" Dob.

 

Kon, you're just annoying me now! 😉  Even your "bad seeing" one is good! Let me play devil's advocate here. According to you, it's all "seeing" while you sit there with your "Imaging challenge winner -2nd place - "Pick a planet" and  what you're consistently stating suggests that you got that little trophy due to nothing more than  being lucky enough to live in Wiltshire and get some good 'seeing'. Everything is down to 'seeing'. So did you win that or did Swindon? LOL 🤣

[Mark2022]

3 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

Yes, I do see what you mean and I did note that I was not doing a great job. However, I do think you are being too hard on your own image and not critical enough on your competitor's image, which I, personally, think has problems, too.

My "competitor". LOL I'm just having fun with my own frustrations! 😁 Yes, I  noticed a little "ringing" in his on the left limb but it was minimal and the overall resolution was great. Again, people have said "You won't achieve 'this sort of resolution with an 8 inch" as if to  say "that's about what you can  expect with an 8 inch" then some little 14 year old dude from Indiana comes along and displays a far higher resolution from a 6 inch! I was  thinking of getting me  a 9.25 inch if an 8 inch can't achieve what I want it to (and I'd bet a lot of people who buy scopes do such thinking they'll get so much better resolution upgrade when, in fact, they don't have to). If it's ALL "seeing" then I'm not going  to buy a 9.25 inch to achieve what a  6 inch can achieve. See my issue?

[Kon]

1 minute ago, Mark2022 said:

Kon, you're just annoying me now! 😉  Even your "bad seeing" one is good! Let me play devil's advocate here. According to you, it's all "seeing" while you sit there with your "Imaging challenge winner -2nd place - "Pick a planet" and  what you're consistently stating suggests that you got that little trophy due to nothing more than  being lucky enough to live in Wiltshire and get some good 'seeing'. Everything is down to 'seeing'. So did you win that or did Swindon? LOL 🤣

I said amongst other parameters. 😉. What you have posted above is decent. Assuming all fine and only seeing, then it is awful seeing you have and I usually don't bother with capture.

Exposure time will have an effect together with FPS, f ratio, camera (I am not familiar with svbony) , focusing, sorry seeing, processing.

If you want help, try listen to us. As you can see we are all trying to help you out. I started serious planetary imaging in 2022 so not a seasoned imager as others here but I listen to advise and experiment.

[Elp]

1 hour ago, Elp said:

Unless you're imaging from the same location you can't really compare the two. Seeing makes all the difference for planetary.

Of course it makes a difference, why do you think you take fast exposures in the first place, it's to freeze the seeing and increase the probability of you capturing such images. If you don't reject the right amount at the stacking stage this can also make a difference. Altitude of the target also makes a big difference. Post processing will also bring out fine details especially if you use wavelets or some sort of deconvolution.

[Mark2022]

Just now, Kon said:

I said amongst other parameters. 😉. What you have posted above is decent. Assuming all fine and only seeing, then it is awful seeing you have and I usually don't bother with capture.

Exposure time will have an effect together with FPS, f ratio, camera (I am not familiar with svbony) , focusing, sorry seeing, processing.

If you want help, try listen to us. As you can see we are all trying to help you out. I started serious planetary imaging in 2022 so not a seasoned imager as others here but I listen to advise and experiment.

I DO listen. I dream at  night and I hear you all whispering in my ear "It's all seeing, Mark". You're all little green men however and I wake up in a sweat repeating "Seeing, seeing seeing'. 

As for exposure time: 4ms to 6 ms. FPS: Well, I'm getting close to 10000 (none dropped) within 2 minutes.Fratio: I'm achieving my best images (as above) with F10/2xbarlow/ 2.9 micron  pixels - I have no idea what effective F ratio that is. It's quite clear tonight so I might try with a 3x barlow to see if that produces even better results. Focusing:  I've mentioned before: I have stock  Meade focuser (sloppy) but when I get it close, I turn to my SVBony helical in line focuser which, when I'm "dead on" I just need to twist ever so slightly - a fraction of a turn - one way or the other and I go out of focus so I know I'm in focus.

Processing: It's just a hunch but I think my processing could improve because, when I'musing wavelets and then sharpening, I'm unsure how strongly to adjust the wavelets themselves before sharpening and I just jump around. I've even used the Lucy Richardson deconvolution in Astrosurface before I do any wavelets or sharpening because, when I do, it has a very beneficial effect on the 'resolution' of the image even before I start to  use the others.

[Mandy D]

Native f/10 with 2x Barlow is effective f/20. For 2.9 μm pixels you should be running about f/15 max. With the 3x Barlow you will be at f/30. Nothing gained by doing that.

[Kon]

1 minute ago, Mark2022 said:

I DO listen. I dream at  night and I hear you all whispering in my ear "It's all seeing, Mark". You're all little green men however and I wake up in a sweat repeating "Seeing, seeing seeing'. 

As for exposure time: 4ms to 6 ms. FPS: Well, I'm getting close to 10000 (none dropped) within 2 minutes.Fratio: I'm achieving my best images (as above) with F10/2xbarlow/ 2.9 micron  pixels - I have no idea what effective F ratio that is. It's quite clear tonight so I might try with a 3x barlow to see if that produces even better results. Focusing:  I've mentioned before: I have stock  Meade focuser (sloppy) but when I get it close, I turn to my SVBony helical in line focuser which, when I'm "dead on" I just need to twist ever so slightly - a fraction of a turn - one way or the other and I go out of focus so I know I'm in focus.

Processing: It's just a hunch but I think my processing could improve because, when I'musing wavelets and then sharpening, I'm unsure how strongly to adjust the wavelets themselves before sharpening and I just jump around. I've even used the Lucy Richardson deconvolution in Astrosurface before I do any wavelets or sharpening because, when I do, it has a very beneficial effect on the 'resolution' of the image even before I start to  use the others.

It is unlikely you will get anything decent tonight. Look at the Jetstream. That will cause havoc in your seeing. Scotland hot red, Wiltshire a bit better. I am not getting out with this map😜

What you describe is fine. Regarding focus, it takes time. Until this weekend, I had a box standard focuser. I just upgraded. You will get a feeling when it is good focusing. Try overxpose the planet a bit but go back to a 60-70 histogram for capture. 

F10 is the native focal ratio? You need to be at 5x the pixel size, maybe x7 under excellent seeing, optimal f15 for your camera. If you are at F10 native, then a x1.5 barlow will do.

[Elp]

Your image isn't bad. I'm surprised the other party have managed to stack 80pc, they must of had some wishful conditions to be able to stack at such a high level, it's DSO level of percentage. Usually when doing planets I can only stack up to 10-15pc looking at the quality graphs.

[Mark2022]

10 minutes ago, Elp said:

Of course it makes a difference, why do you think you take fast exposures in the first place, it's to freeze the seeing and increase the probability of you capturing such images. If you don't reject the right amount at the stacking stage this can also make a difference. Altitude of the target also makes a big difference. Post processing will also bring out fine details especially if you use wavelets or some sort of deconvolution.

I didn't say it didn't make a difference, ELP. I'm just not convinced it makes ALL the difference. I'm blaming my own lack of skills here and all you are doing is piling on and depressing me! 😮‍💨 What kind of man are you?! 😂 I tend to try various rejection percentages. I'll try stacking 10% then perhaps 30% or 50% then 70 or 80%.  They all generally come out the same after processing. Of course, using wavelets and deconv but, again, unsure as to  how best to use them and in which order. Everything seems to 'sharpen' and denoise and which to use first? Which not to use if you use one or the other?  I stab around experimenting all the time. The one biggest  difference to the results I'vebeen getting recently, is to move from prime focus to 2x barlow. With the latter, I get much better results/detail.

[Mark2022]

4 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

Native f/10 with 2x Barlow is effective f/20. For 2.9 μm pixels you should be running about f/15 max. With the 3x Barlow you will be at f/30. Nothing gained by doing that.

Mandy, I am getting FAR more detail with the 2x barlow than what I get at prime focus F10 so I simply can't agree.

[Mark2022]

3 minutes ago, Elp said:

Your image isn't bad. I'm surprised the other party have managed to stack 80pc, they must of had some wishful conditions to be able to stack at such a high level, it's DSO level of percentage. Usually when doing planets I can only stack up to 10-15pc looking at the quality graphs.

Yes, I tend to do the 10% level. Sometimes trying more but, seeing no real difference or perhaps a little better with 10% or so, I tend to stick there.

[Mandy D]

Just now, Mark2022 said:

Mandy, I am getting FAR more detail with the 2x barlow than what I get at prime focus F10 so I simply can't agree.

I've no doubt you are, but you will not, except, maybe, perhaps under truly exceptional seeing max out the benefits of 2x Barlow on an f/10 with 2.9 μm pixels. Physics is working against you, here. Scale your image to 75% and it will be closer to 1.5x Barlow and some of the blurriness will disappear. I doubt you have gained extra detail (byond a 1.5x Barlow) by using such a long focal length with that size pixels and that scope under the seeing you appear to have at your location. A 3x Barlow is simply going to give you a harder time focusing and controlling vibrations, etc. But, of course, this is my opinion only and you are free to go whatever way you like.

[Mark2022]

7 minutes ago, Kon said:

It is unlikely you will get anything decent tonight. Look at the Jetstream. That will cause havoc in your seeing. Scotland hot red, Wiltshire a bit better. I am not getting out with this map😜

What you describe is fine. Regarding focus, it takes time. Until this weekend, I had a box standard focuser. I just upgraded. You will get a feeling when it is good focusing. Try overxpose the planet a bit but go back to a 60-70 histogram for capture. 

F10 is the native focal ratio? You need to be at 5x the pixel size, maybe x7 under excellent seeing, optimal f15 for your camera. If you are at F10 native, then a x1.5 barlow will do.

Yes, I've recently been checking out the jet stream and the crap that came over from Canada with Storm Agnes. I lived in SE Asia for 10 years - wish I was back. They don't live under a jet stream!

You  say (as Mandy does)  that F15 is the right focal  ratio and that could be  correct but I don't have a  1.5x barlow and my best results are with the  2x. Then again, if that were  the  case,  how does the  14 year old achieve what he does with  a 3x barlow? 3.75 microns with an ASi 224 rather than  2.9 with the SVBony?

[Mark2022]

3 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

I've no doubt you are, but you will not, except, maybe, perhaps under truly exceptional seeing max out the benefits of 2x Barlow on an f/10 with 2.9 μm pixels. Physics is working against you, here. Scale your image to 75% and it will be closer to 1.5x Barlow and some of the blurriness will disappear. I doubt you have gained extra detail (byond a 1.5x Barlow) by using such a long focal length with that size pixels and that scope under the seeing you appear to have at your location. A 3x Barlow is simply going to give you a harder time focusing and controlling vibrations, etc. But, of course, this is my opinion only and you are free to go whatever way you like.

Ok I hear you! Can I leave the naughty step now?

[Kon]

5 minutes ago, Mark2022 said:

Yes, I've recently been checking out the jet stream and the crap that came over from Canada with Storm Agnes. I lived in SE Asia for 10 years - wish I was back. They don't live under a jet stream!

You  say (as Mandy does)  that F15 is the right focal  ratio and that could be  correct but I don't have a  1.5x barlow and my best results are with the  2x. Then again, if that were  the  case,  how does the  14 year old achieve what he does with  a 3x barlow? 3.75 microns with an ASi 224 rather than  2.9 with the SVBony?

Yes an overkill. As Mandy said you will not get more out of it you just amplifying the bad conditions more. If you unscrew your barlow and scew the lens on your camera it will roughly be 1.5x.

Keep an eye on the maps and try when it's higher up.  Make sure you cool the telescope too. I let mine cool for 1hr.